Clark Baker: Involved In At Least 3 Cases

When I started this website, my sole concern was telling the truth.  My personal belief in HIV Criminalization laws, like many people, is not black and white.  I believe in some cases these laws are warranted.  Yet from my research, I have found that most often these laws are not applied judicially or fairly and are most often driven by fear and ignorance.  In those instances, I am in favor of the accused receiving the best defense possible despite my personal opinion of the form that defense takes.  However, I know that Clark Baker’s sole agenda is to manipulate the judicial system and use it as a platform to sway public opinion about the credibility of HIV Science, Scientists and doctors.  That is why I took on this project; to keep Clark Baker honest.
 
I presumed that Clark Baker would greatly exaggerate the extent of his involvement in these cases and my subsequent research has proven my hunch to be true.  I decided before beginning this project that if I found cases in which Clark Baker was indeed beneficial, I would report it.  It is only fair.  I will admit that part of my reasoning for reporting any instance showing Mr. Baker’s usefulness in a case is also to further my own credibility of truthfulness in this project.  I knew that the likelihood of finding instances of Mr. Baker’s usefulness in a case was statistically significant for two reasons:
  1. Mr. Baker is an aggressive person and I knew that he would be reaching out to as many attorneys/cases as humanly possible.  It would not be statistically viable for him to be turned down for every case.  Therefore, it would not be realistic to only present cases in which he is obviously lying about his involvement.
  2. The job of an attorney is simply to get the best outcome for his client.  Period.  An attorney would not be performing his job if he did not consider every possible alternative in the defense of his client.
While gathering evidence to prove that Clark Baker was not useful in the Darren Chiacchia case specifically, I contacted the attorney Baron Coleman via email.  Mr. Coleman replied.  Part of Mr. Coleman’s reply asserted Mr. Baker’s involvement in three of his cases.  His reply also proved what I have said in #2 above about the goal of a defense attorney.
 
“I am a lawyer.  As such, my sole concern is doing what is in the best interest of my client.  At times, my clients benefit from resources from one or more outside groups to help further my clients’ interests.  These resources include access to financing, medical experts, assistance tracking down documents, and encouragement and support groups for the clients.  The groups range from local HIV support groups to entities that bill themselves as national interest groups.
 
In my line of work, I would have a difficult time turning down assistance in any area that could help generate a positive outcome in a criminal case.  Indeed, our national model of criminal justice depends on an attorney seeking every ethical and legal measure at his or her disposal to assist in getting a positive outcome for each client.
 
I do all I can to best represent each client in my practice.  I do not take a political position on the issue of HIV science or medicine, just as I do not take a political position on a personal injury or murder case in my practice.  Political positions are for others to champion.  My sole concern is my client.  If there is an effective defense I can set forth, an expert I can put up, or a source of financing I can use to further my client’s defense, I see it as my solemn and grave duty to pursue it.  To do less would jeopardize my oath and make a mockery of my practice.”
 
Mr. Coleman went on to discuss Mr. Baker’s involvement in three of his cases:
 
“I refuse to assign blame or credit to this group or that group for any particular case.  It is my office’s firm policy to not comment on the support from outside groups.  Some groups prefer to advertise their support and some groups prefer that it not be known they are assisting with these types of criminal cases.  Since Mr. Baker apparently does not mind voicing his support for a few of my firm’s cases, I will say Mr. Baker has provided some assistance on at least three of my cases in the past.  On two of the cases, his support was accompanied by several other HIV advocacy organizations, including local and national groups that are very much respected, mainstream, and anti-dissident.  The level of support from each group varied on each case.  On at least one case, Mr. Baker was the most helpful outside group.  On at least one case, he provided minimal support, while another outside group provided a great deal of support in the area of legal strategy and financing.”
 
Baker Involved In 3 Cases, But At What Compromise?  
 
Mr. Coleman states that Mr. Baker was involved in three cases.  One of which Mr. Baker was even “the most helpful outside group” while on a second case Mr. Baker “provided minimal support”.  But the most interesting part of this entire statement is that on two of the three cases Mr. Baker worked, there were also “HIV advocacy organizations…that were very much respected, mainstream, and anti-dissident.”   WOW!  How can this be?  That is in direct contradiction to the supposed agenda Mr. Baker is perpetuating.  Clark Baker is a no apologies, aggressive AIDS Dissident.  The entire stated purpose of HIV Innocence Project/Group is to further the belief that HIV Science is fraudulent and faulty and there is no such thing as an expert in the field of HIV Science or HIV/AIDS disease and to perpetuate this nonsense to the general public via the court system.  Yet here is proof that Baker is working in direct connection with mainstream, very much respected, anti-dissident HIV advocacy groups!  How can this even be possible?  Is Mr. Baker compromising his agenda?  His credibility?  His Integrity?  All the above?
 
As I have shown here, Mr. Baker has indeed been involved in at least three cases.  And even if the involvement in one of those cases was “minimal” it can still be part of Baker’s resume.  So I have to wonder; Why is Mr. Baker padding his resume with other cases that he has obviously not been involved?  I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt here at this very site that Mr. Baker has not been involved in at least 8 other cases and I have more on the way.  So why risk your credibility by lying in such an obvious, verifiable way?
 
Sleeping With The Enemy
Although Mr. Coleman has provided the first evidence that Mr. Baker has actually been useful in some capacity, the fact that he is working alongside these well respected anti-dissident groups only requires more answers.  All I have been asking of Mr. Baker is for him to be forthcoming with the cases he has helped, specifics on how he has helped these cases and for transparency regarding his staff.  Up until now I believed him to be reticent with the facts because it is easier to make a claim than to back up that claim.  Perhaps this proves there is more to his refusal.  Perhaps he is afraid to admit that he is sleeping with the enemy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: